Unpopular Opinions

Scroll to see replies

Reply 260

MemeworksStudios

Original post by Reality Check

Let's hope you're not considering a career in medicine.

Diet affects the health of your skin, this is not controversial.

Reply 261

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Foo.mp3

Key word highlighted. Simple cursory examinations are not a sound basis upon which to tell someone you do not personally know what era they are living in (supposing one believes that to do so would be appropriate in the first place). Again, this speaks to your maturity, and I would encourage you to reflect on that, particularly given the discursive context - creating a thread that invites controversy only to bicker, get personal, and denigrate contributors - again, something to reflect on, perhaps

Keep telling myself what, dearest?

I borrow from religion (quasi-Jesu-moralist), and allow for some spirituality in my life, but am not a member/follower of a particular form of organised religion

How was I getting personal again? Did you take offence or something, love?

And, of course you have an obscure religious/spiritual take. Contributes to your narcissistic attitude. :h:

You can PM me about more of your view if you'd like, as you seem to like writing long winded essays trying to convince yourself and us that what you believe is the absolute truth.

Reply 262

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Foo.mp3

Do I really need to spell out how condescending/dismissive it is to tell someone they're living/looking to live in the 1950s? :mute:

Not sure I follow, perhaps you'd care to elucidate the link?

As I said in my earlier response, it's a bit long, famalam, but you can find plenty of related analysis/conjecture at the links provided, plus my other contributions to the relevant subforums of this site (including threads I have created, based out of a wealth of experience talking to young people about themselves, and interpersonal/intergender dynamics) :smile:

"All that we can be certain of is that we can be certain of nothing"

Spoiler

Well, no it wasn't really. This sort of stuff is exactly the type of thing they believed in the 50s.

And, the link to what?

Also, can I ask why you've joined the 'Feminism' group on here, if you don't really believe in what they say?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 263

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Foo.mp3

What sort of stuff? You're very vague. If you're going to write someone off as retrograde then it's probably a good idea to have a firm handle on things, love

I provided a few links to neomasculinity, a thread, and a post

1. I joined years ago

2. Feminism is a broad church: some conceive of it as being an essentially egalitarian movement (which, broadly, I support), whereas others take a more literalist stance e.g. focus on advocating for women's rights (alone), which naturally I cannot, in good conscience, support (same goes for advocating for men's rights (alone)

I'm not being vague, darling. I already said, evidently you did not listen. But, anyway, 2nd time, the neomasculism post/thread, just had really sexist undertones like men should be this, women should be that etc, I'm sure you've read it, but then again you see that as the 'right' outlook.

And, no I meant, you asked me to give a link about the religion comment, a link to what?

Reply 264

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Reality Check

This really does come across as puffed up twaddle. Perchance, do you put your hand up in lectures/supervisions to point out where, in your opinion the lecturer has gone wrong?

Why isn't he answering you? Lol

Reply 265

Reality Check

Because he's above it. He's not answered RainbowMan either, and I don't imagine he will. You should obviously be flattered that he has deigned to engage with you! After all, you silly fluffy lady brain can't really deal with any form of complexity, can it. Now run along, 50s style, put a ribbon in your hair and prepare for your husband's return.

Reply 266

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Reality Check

I am flattered. :colondollar:

Reply 267

Reality Check

You, too are honoured. Is 'semi-serious trolling' trolling that could possibly be misconstrued as a genuine post and, if it were, you'd let it be seen as such?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 268

Reality Check

Yep, I get that. In fact, I've spent a large part of my life devising ways to say innocuous things in a slightly inflammatory way. Passes the time.

Reply 269

Reality Check

Sorry, Nirvana - I'm hijacking your post (are we still allowed to say hijacking?) I'll shut up now.

Reply 270

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by Foo.mp3

You stated no particular contentions. Make them plain, or concede the point, there's a good girl :smile:

That's interpretative, but probably not wrong, in some respects, where that particular presentation is concerned (Roosh is a bit of a douche). Strip away the superiority complex/mild misogyny and unfortunately it's hard to argue with the essential, observation-based logic, or indeed to be unconcerned by the psychological/sociological implications thereof

Oh, right, I asked you to explain the connection between unconventional approaches to religious ethics/spirituality and narcissism, if you would be so kind

I did, perhaps learn how to read, boyo. :h:

Or, look at my responses on other threads, if you want. It's hilarious how narcissistic you are.

And, I think you've gone off on a tangent there.

And, I don't need to provide a link. It's obvious you think you're too high up for a regular religion. It's funny you take the p*** out of SJW's for using diffferent terms and being too PC or whatever for ex.the trans, and cis thing, and the different identities other than the regular Masculine and Feminine, yet you do the same thing with your religion/spiritual thing. And, being 'spiritual' is a pretty vague concept.